LETTER
OF ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW TO PATRIARCH ALEXY
OF MOSCOW CONCERNING THE ORTHODOX IN ESTONIA

Prot.
No. 206

Your
Beatitude, Most Holy Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and all
Russia, our Modesty's most beloved and dear brother in
Christ God and concelebrant : Embracing Your venerable
Beatitude in the Lord, we greet you exuberantly.
Your most beloved and distinguished Beatitude's letter
of February 6, 1996, indicates that so far You have not
wanted to comprehend the truly peacemaking intentions
of the Most Holy Mother Church of Constantinople regarding
the matter of the Estonian Church. Instead, You accuse
the Ecumenical Patriarchate anew of transgressing the
Holy Canons and hurl uncharacteristic threats at it and
us, personally, which ought not to happen.
Until this point, our Church of Constantinople has deliberately
avoided accusing the Most Holy Church of Russia. On the
contrary, from the beginning the Church of Constantinople
has tried to build a bridge over the psychological gap
between the Orthodox Estonians and the Orthodox of Russian
descent created during the Soviet occupation. We are mindful
that the Russian Church was also tormented by the Soviet
regime, and indeed for a longer period of time than the
Church in Estonia, and we justify Your personal opposition,
Beatitude and brother, on this issue, as being due to
Your emotional bond with Your own homeland of Estonia.
But You, Beatitude and brother, and Your Church, while
not responding to these endeavors of ours, continue to
accuse both the Orthodox Estonians as an illicit assembly
and us as interfering uncanonically in the internal matters
of the Church of Russia. And all this while negotiations
are in process, sometimes by publishing articles against
us, sometimes by imposing the penalty of suspension on
those clergymen in Estonia who have refer themselves to
the Ecumenical Patriarchate, You are acting in a manner
which clearly indicate that You are using the negotiations
as a pretext to secure an indefinite extension, thus greatly
damaging the sacred cause of Orthodoxy in Estonia.
In addition, we need to further declare the following
:
1. In no way are You justified in considering the Orthodox
Estonians guilty of an uncanonical act of insubordination
towards their supposed canonical bishop, namely Archbishop
Komellos, since he constitutes the continuation of the
violently accomplished overthrow in 1944 of the canonical
order by the Stalinist army. Then, as it is known and
corroborated, the then canonical Metropolitan Alexander
of Tallinn and all Estonia was forced to flee abroad with
23 clergymen and 7000 lay people, while another 45 clerics
were murdered or exiled. These things occurred when the
persecutions against the Russian Church were already Past,
and Your predecessors, Sergios and Alexy 1, accepted the
just praise of Stalin for their heroic contribution in
defending their fatherland against the German invaders.
It is therefore obvious that this so honored Russian Church
of that time was involved in the expulsion of the Orthodox
Estonians and benefitted from it in order to take over
the territory of the Orthodox Estonian Church. The foundations
of the Archdiocese of Archbishop Kornelios are not canonical
and it is not right to invoke the divine and sacred Canons
in this case.
2. But nor can the flock of Archbishop Kornelios be regarded
as a continuation of the flock of the Estonian Apostolic
Orthodox Church prior to 1940, since the greater majority
of them are Russian immigrants who were coerced by Stalin
to establish themselves en masse in Estonia in order to
alter the ethnological composition of the population.
How can a Church be called Estonian when it is made up
of Russian immigrants?
3. In no way are You justified, Beatitude, in condemning
the Orthodox Estonians of phyletism. They, as a race themselves,
have the right, in accordance with the 34th canon of the
Holy Apostles, to constitute their own Church, having
the bishops in their Church and the first among them from
among their own race, especially since they constitute
a sovereign and independent nation.
4. The Most Holy Church of Russia is not at all justified
in accusing the Ecumenical Patriarchate of encroaching
in the internal affairs of the Church of Russia while
transgressing the Holy Canons. On the contrary, the Patriarchate
of Russia during those years trespassed in countries under
the spiritual jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
namely, Estonia, Hungary and elsewhere, always by the
power of the Soviet army. The Church of Russia did not
at the time seek the opinion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
nor was any respect shown it. The annexation of the Orthodox
Church of Estonia into the Most Holy Church of Russia
happened arbitrarily and uncanonically. And it is certain
that events which are uncanonical at one particular time
are never blessed, never seen as efficacious, and never
would they set a precedence.
5. Even if the issue were not one of a territory belonging
to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
according to the strict interpretation of the Canons,
it was still dutybound to intervene; of course, not of
its own volition, but if invited to do so by someone who
has been wronged. The holy and Godbearing fathers in Canons
9 and 17 of the Holy Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon
placed upon the Church of Constantinople the most onerous
responsibility of adjudicating cases of other local Churches
when called upon to do so. How great a weight this responsibility
is is demonstrated by the issue at hand, when in defense
of the small number of people who are Orthodox Estonians,
the Ecumenical Patriarchate has to displease the Most
Holy and cherished daughter Church of Russia. It does
this precisely in defense of this small flock, not for
personal gain, since the Ecumenical Patriarchate stands
to gain nothing from this situation apart from the moral
reward which comes from the gratitude of the Orthodox
Estonians. The Ecumenical Patriarchate takes such action
by exercising the obligation given to it by tradition
and established custom and its responsibility to meet
the needs of the Churches in particular circumstances
and of Orthodox people everywhere.
6. Our Church was further surprised at the uneasiness
of Your Beatitude regarding possible actions of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate at the expense of the Orthodox faithful in
Estonia of Russian descent. Do you believe, Most Honored
Brother, that it is possible, while defending the downtrodden
rights of the Orthodox Estonians that we as the Church
of Constantinople would accept trampling the rights of
the Russians in Estonia ? Rather, the Ecumenical Throne
can never forget that from it the great race of the Russians
received the light of Christ and saving baptism. For many
long centuries your ancestors have been children of the
Ecumenical Throne, and you, the Russians of today, constitute
children of those children. The Mother never stops loving
her children, even when the children deny the Mother.
Even if you, Most Blessed Brother, systematically refuse
to refer to the fundamental historical significance of
the Church of Constantinople with regard to the birth
and development of Your Church, and You address her simply
as "Elder Sister," still You, personally, were
born in Estonia under the omophorion of the Church of
Constantinople and as her child You were baptized and
spent your childhood there.
We declare, then, before God and man, that the Orthodox
faithful of Russian descent constitutefor us beloved children
of the Church, the same as are the Orthodox Estonians,
and we are ready to protect them also, if necessary. So
we desire the brotherly cooperation of all and reject
every sort of unbrotherly action no matter what side it
comes from.
Inevitably, the prolongation of uncertainty and the climate
of mutual suspicion created by it brings about only harm
and widens the chasm between the two groups of Orthodox
brethren. In particular, the long-term abandonment of
the Orthodox Estonians without the necessary ecclesiastical
tutelage only propagates the danger that they will join
other Christian Churches. For this reason we deemed it
necessary and indeed imperative---sinceall our attempts
for a peaceful resolution between the two Churches produced
nothing for which You are at fault--- to proceed in reactivating
the Patriarchal and Synodical Tome of 1923, which the
Patriarchal and Synodical Praxis of 1978 had made inoperative,
but not invalid. If the Praxis of 1978 was enacted for
the sake of smooth relations with the Patriarchate of
Moscow, at which time Estonia still constituted a section
of the then Soviet Union, the new Praxis is enacted at
the request of the Orthodox Estonians who are of immediate
concern and of their State, following the radical political
change which occurred with the declaration of Estonian
independence in 1991. A similar prior example lies before
us, namely, the Russian Orthodox Parishes in Western Europe
under the venerable Ecumenical Throne. The Ecumenical
Patriarchate, as a token and proof of its sincere disposition
towards the Patriarchate of Moscow, by a Praxis in 1965
released these parishes from its jurisdiction, although
it was forced later to receive them once again at the
persistent request of their members.
We hope that you understand, Beatitude and Brother, You
and the Most Holy Russian Church around You, that the
canonical Praxis to which we have proceeded in no way
turns against the Orthodox in Estonia of Russian descent,
but rather contributes to the alleviation of their ordeals
as well. Besides, in our Patriarchal and Synodical Praxis,
a copy of which is attached for Your information, there
is specific mention of the situation of the Orthodox of
Russian descent as You can testify. In closing, embracing
once again Your Beloved Beatitude as a brother in the
Lord, we remain with unending love in Him and with special
esteem.
February 24, 1996